Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 16:32, 6 November 2009

• WP:BLPN
• WP:BLP/N
• WP:BLPNB
• WP:BLP/NB

This noticeboard is for discussing the application of the biographies of living people (BLP) policy to article content. Please seek to resolve issues on the article talk page first, and only post here if that discussion requires additional input.

Do not copy and paste defamatory material here; instead, link to a diff showing the problem.

Additional notes:

• Edits by the subject of an article may be welcome in some cases.
• For general content disputes regarding biographical articles, try Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment/Biographies instead.
• Editors are encouraged to assist editors regarding the reports below. Administrators may impose contentious topic restrictions to enforce policies.

• Refining the administrator elections process
• Blocks for promotional activity outside of mainspace

Marietta, Georgia

Marietta, Georgia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Two IPs (perhaps the same person) keep vandalizing this page with unreferenced comment about Melanie Oudin. They continue to post" Oudin also has the long-time nickname of "The Little Chicken," a nod to the Big Chicken landmark of her hometown'

There is no refence that this is true and in fact may be a slur against this young lady. The IPs are 66.191.125.116 98.251.120.123

They are also vandalizing the entry for "Big Chicken" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.99.232.57 (talk • contribs) 01:40, 27 September 2009

This is the wrong place to put it. Marietta, Georgia is not a person and this is the BLP board. Try the vandalism board for recent vandalism, AN for a long term problem. Mayor of Gotham City (talk) 01:09, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

The change concerned a living person therefore BLP applies. I'm not saying that this wouldn't be better handled somewhere else but this is definitely a potential BLP issue and is not off topic here Nil Einne (talk) 20:48, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Brittny Gastineau

On this article, an editor is reverting the removal of an unsourced quote by Brittny Gastineau as "vandalism". The quote is from the movie Bruno and talks about how the subject thought that another famous living person (Jamie Lynn Spears) should have had an aborotion. My question is, is it apporpitate to add unsourced quotes to a biography of a living person? I also think this content is trivial and shouldn't be in the article. Please advise. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.241.18.229 (talk) 19:36, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

It is not unsourced to state what her role was in the movie. Removing these facts is vandalism. Spidey104 (talk) 23:22, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Uh...you're involved and not exactly a neutral party. i would like some input from someone not involved and someone who understands what vandalism actually is. Also the unsourced quote has been removed with just a mention of her apperance in teh film which should be enough. Rewording content is NOT VANDALISM. who wrote this?

I never claimed rewording content was vandalism. Removing the content IS vandalism and that is what I was constantly fixing. The rewording of the content was done AFTER I re-added the information to revert the vandalism that was removing the content. You are portraying events contrary to facts. Now that the content is reworded ,with the necessary information still included, I am happy with how it stands. Spidey104 (talk) 14:09, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

I wrote the above comment and I AM NOT portraying events contrary to fact. you have reverted rewritten content even if that means repeating the same info twice and called vandalism. That can be seen in this link It was the next to last edit you made to the article when you finally stopped edit warring which I appreciate. Now 128.104.213.238 has taken up your cause of including an unsourced inflammatory comment about another living person. I'll assume good faith for now but i find that coincidental. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.243.34.240 (talk) 19:34, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

I find it ironic that 70.243.34.240 is accusing me of continuing an edit war on an article that he himself has edited under at least one other address (70.241.18.229). I have continued to make edits to other articles since I stopped touching the Brittny article, so what evidence do you have to prove that it is me? I only just now noticed that this edit war was continuing because I was about to remove this page from my watchlist. Spidey104 (talk) 16:00, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Hi. 128.104.213.238 (talk) 16:29, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

It's not ironic to have a rotating ip address. My isp gives me a new ip everytime I log on. You can also mark all the talk pages of the ip's I use but it is not sockpupperty to use different ips to edit. I haven't been acting like I'm different people or used the different ips to create fake support for my edits or anything so you can find it ironic all you want but youre sadly mistaken and you know it. If I were you Id find the fact that the 128.104.213.238 ip hasn't edited once since June 2009 and only appeared to help you re-add the text youve been readding to the article since July 2009 more ironic than my valid ip change. There's also the fact that they edited three times in the last three days about thirty minutes after you. I guess you can't be the same person though because you warned them on their talk page and then they told you (twenty-six minutes later) that they will probably keep on edit warring . Plus they even vandalized your page which no sockpuppet would ever do . Unless you want to battle wits some more about sockpuppetry this issue is resolved because the BLP violating text has been removed for the tiem being. I wont be surprised if 128.104.213.238 shows back up to start the game again though. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.243.34.210 (talk) 02:20, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

It's rather convenient that you have a rotating IP address so you can do whatever you want without anyone linking you to a string of edits. You should just register. I on the other hand continue to use this one and only IP address so that everyone knows it's me. I'll eventually register, but only after this conflict has been solved as I want people to know it was me the whole time and not think it's two separate people. 128.104.213.238 (talk) 16:16, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

By the way, I have now registered because it was the only way to try to keep my fight alive. 128.104.truth (talk) 21:51, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Colorado balloon incident

I've been thinking this would be a problem for a while, but never came across the article until now. As those aware of the incident may guess, this is likely to be a big BLP problem for a while and there are already a number of discussions which raise BLP issues so the eyes of BLP aware editors would be helpful Nil Einne (talk) 11:23, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

I think you're right, that this is a possible hornet's nest of BLP concerns,and needs to be watched carefully.--JohnnyB256 (talk) 14:47, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

In particular, I have concerns about User:Viriditas understanding and acceptance of WP:BLP given his repeated claims at Talk:Colorado balloon incident#Hoax not "Confirmed" that I'm "trying to hide poor research and editing behind policy enforcement" when I explain why it was likely inappropriate to discuss the incident as a hoax when all we had were two not great sources . (For clarity, I only found the article today and Viriditas seemingly likewise so this is an abstract issue.) While he/she hasn't done anything I noticed that I would call a major problem, this sort of lack of acceptance of BLP strikes me as problematic for an experienced editor. I'm clearly not helping the situation and probably made it worse by engaging in somewhat OT debate so would appreciate it if someone with a good knowledge of BLP and good ability to explain it to editors could discuss it with him probably directly on his talk page Nil Einne (talk) 13:33, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Frankly that whole discussion is rather daft, upon looking at the edit history I found out the hoax speculation was added 4 hours after the boy was found which was 2:22 hours after the article was created so the whole complaint is about 6 hours at most. However regardless I'm still concerned about Viriditas understanding & acceptance of BLP Nil Einne (talk) 14:10, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

• I think the main hinge of the argument is whether or not it is premature to add a hoax category. –xeno 14:20, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Of course it is. If it's a hoax, they're guilty of numerous criminal charges. We're not judge, juries and executioners. If there is an "alleged hoax" category we could put it there. But criminal charges are pending, the parents are not admitting it's a hoax, and that's that. --JohnnyB256 (talk) 14:33, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Most of the discussion has actually be about either no longer relevant or just completely OT stuff and that's partly my fault. The category issue appears to be the only significant outstanding issue that I noticed Nil Einne (talk) 14:51, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Categories with "alleged" (or "accused") in the name are universally deleted at CFD, because there's no meaningful threshold for inclusion. How many people are alleging, or who is making the allegations? It just turns into a weasel word category implying guilt, and once you've been alleged of something you've always been alleged of something, even if acquitted, so it would never be removed either. Categories simply can't handle that kind of imprecision or hedging, because the category tag will appear at the bottom of the article without qualification, direct sourcing, explanation, etc. I don't think anyone should lose sleep if we have to wait until a reliable determination that this was a hoax to categorize it as a hoax. I simply don't understand the urgency here. Postdlf (talk) 15:55, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

We have to be careful not to call it a hoax yet because then we could "Richard Jewell" him. Jewell was convicted by NBC but later the police admitted he did not do it and the other guy who bombed the abortion clinic did it. We can say that the sheriff is calling it a hoax if we stay neutral. Mayor of Gotham City (talk) 01:10, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Use of Template:The Holocaust

Issue raised in relation of Charles Zentai, who has been charged with Holocaust-related war crime, and may or may not be extradited for trial, depending result of his appeal. While WP:BLP doesn't specifically mention templates, I suspect that large Holocaust template in article about person who has not been properly convicted does not really fit with WP living person related policies. user:Harryzilber disagrees with me believing that template is appropriate in this case. So I thought that most appropriate solution is asking some input here.--Staberinde (talk) 19:39, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Further info can be found at: Talk:Charles_Zentai –NPOV. The Charles Zentai article is also related to a Categorization deletion review here. Best: HarryZilber (talk) 20:00, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Uh, no comments at all?--Staberinde (talk) 20:18, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

• I would say that it's a BLP and thus we should err on the side of caution and not include the template unless he is convicted. –xeno 20:21, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

• He is associated with the holocaust topic via his being accused, something nobody denies. If he had other notoriety outside of the accusation I would agree with you. Pirate 00:10, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Need opinions on which photos are better

I took a bunch of photos over the weekend at the Big Apple Con of the various celebrities and artists, and in placing the pics in the appropriate articles, I've come across a few in which I'm not sure which is the better photo. In three of the cases I'm not sure if the one already in the article is better, and in the fourth, I'm not sure which of the two I took should be used. I could use some opinions on this. I usually just switch the photo when the one in the article is of lesser quality (and there are quite a few of those), but since this is more ambiguous, I'd rather get some objective opinions, rather than create the appearance of just favoring my pics.

1. Daphnee Lynn Duplaix The one currently in the article is cropped off at the top, chopping off her head. The one I took doesn't have that problem, but I'm not sure if the lighting is too bright (which sometimes happens when I use the flash).
2. Michael Hogan The one in the article looks good, though the lighting is a bit dark. The lighting in the one I took is better, I think, but I wanted to be sure.
3. Lou Ferrigno Ferrigno's face is partially in shadow in the photo currently in the article. This isn't a problem in the one I took, but he isn't facing the camera, which I usually prefer.
4. Joanne Kelly I sometimes take a pic of the celebrity I meet with the flash and one without, and usually, the one with is the better one, but in this case, I'm not sure. The one with is the one I put into the article, but I think she looks really good even in the one without, and wanted some feedback.

What do you guys think? Nightscream (talk) 01:32, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Note, I'm a fairly harsh critic on pictures. #1 the article pic is better for me as your has a distracting background; #2your is better, but needs to be cropped to portrait format; #3 article pic is better, if too dark; #4 the natural light pic is better, but you need to clone out the dude in the BG.

2 is a great portrait, I'd be very happy if I'd taken it. Kevin (talk) 01:50, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

My 2¢: Pic #1 - I'm torn. I think your picture is better in general but that annoying piece of paper in the background brings it to a tie. Pic #2 - Yours is better if cropped a bit. Pic #3 - The article one is definitely better. Pic #4 - I like the natural lighting one. I didn't actually notice the tiny guy in the background at first, but as noted by Kevin you need to remove or obscure his image somehow. --ThaddeusB (talk) 02:05, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

I agree with both of the respondents, however, make sure you add {{Commonscat}} to each article. User:Zscout370 02:28, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Have to ditto the above. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 02:41, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

@Nightscream, I too agree with Kevin and ThaddeusB. --Túrelio (talk) 09:23, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

1. yours would need cropping, the background could be reasonably fixed if annotated on the file page.
2. agree re cropping, shame people don;t use more diffuse lighting for "baldies"
3. stick with the existing - better for the infobox.
4. natural light.

Rich Farmbrough, 02:34, 21 October 2009 (UTC).

• Thanks for asking my opinion/s which are as follows:

1. Daphne - yours if you are able to crop image background to remove most if not all of the background - perhaps some photoshop work?
2. Michael - yours
3. Lou - stick with current image
4. Joanne - I like the second image better accept for the curtains parting to reflect person X - so I suggest you keep your alternative - the current one.

--VirtualSteve 04:10, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

• My opinions for what they're worth:

1. Daphne - I think the original is better; the new one has lighting problems, and problems with distractions in the background (e.g. a pair of jeans, a poster on the wall behind her head).
2. Michael - I think the new photo is better; I don't like the lanyon he's wearing around his neck in the original. However, I would photoshop the new one to fix up his hair in a few places, and also remove a distracting intrusion of grey in the background in the bottom left corner.
3. Lou - I think the new photo is probably a better photo but is taken in profile, which probably means the original is more appropriate for the infobox. It also has another face intruding in the background.
4. Joanne - I can't decide in this case. Alex Harvey (talk) 04:55, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

• My opinions, and thank you for asking. (I am using a *bright* contrasty LCD monitor in a dark room) Loosely, I agree with a good number of the above comments. (Is there any rule against using both photos?) But the real question is which you can effectively retouch.

1. Daphne - Existing photo has acceptable contrast, yours (until modified) does not (esp the washed out areas, on my monitor, at least). On the other hand, yours shows more personality, and also, er, attributes for which she is partly known.
2. Michael - Existing photo makes him look more like "the star", I find him harder to identify as Colonel Tigh in yours (for what that's worth!) Both photos need retouching to correct lighting on forehead.
3. Lou - Prefer yours. The shadow on one eye in the existing one might be difficult to correct convincingly.
4. Joanne - Yours is better in several respects.

On aggressive retouching. If you have very good skills, do it. As webmaster I was often asked to reshoot equipment pictures...the cohort in the next cube had been a magazine photo editor, and his standards were outrageously high. I had no alternative to avoid professional criticism from him, except to do color balancing, "unsharp edge", mask backgrounds, and sometimes adjust perspective. (And that's photographing using studio lighting.) I rather like the chance smiling guy in the background of your Joanne. I'd barely modify it at all (the very, very faint white blemish on left halfway between them, even with top of glasses bugs me for some reason), unless it was to standards for some magazine (or Wiki "standards" as mentioned in above comments?) All the others, I'd retouch. The existing one on Lou I might delete, even without your substitute. Best Regards, Piano non troppo (talk) 07:49, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Don't have much to add to the above; substantial retouching as suggested might change things, but at the moment I prefer the current article photo for #1 and the natural light version for #4. Rd232 08:34, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

• Thanks for asking.

1. Daphne: yours iff you make the contrast/saturation much more subdued
2. Michael: yours
3. Lou: stick with current one
4. Joanne:slightly leaning towards yours.

Hope it helps. --Cyclpia - 11:00, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Cyclopia's views. — Cheers, JackLee 13:11, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

• I'm no photography expert at all, but I would say #1 yours with cropping, #2 yours, #3 status quo and #4 I'm really ambivalent but I guess the second one. - Draeco (talk) 16:23, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
• Concur with Draeco (as to both the choices and the disclaimer of expert status). As to Joanne Kelly, both are good, maybe I'd lean a tiny bit toward the natural light photo provided you can eliminate the mystery head behind the curtain (would be a cute detail in a random photo, but IMHO not the most appropriate detail for the top-of-the-page infobox photo). Hope you had a good time at Big Apple Con. Best,--Arxiloxos (talk) 16:33, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
• Another two cents: Daphne: replace with yours. Michael: replace with yours. Lou: do not replace, yours is worse. The much more engaged facial expression and sharper focus of the existing photo trumps the better lighting of yours. Joanne: replace with the unflashed one; the lighting and facial expression are both better. —David Eppstein (talk) 03:39, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

• I could only come to a clear conclusion for 1, 2 and 4. 1 although the improvements are good (I was confused by the above comments first until I realised the image had been changed) I still feel the existing image is better. The cut off hair is annoying but since this isn't Marge Simpson the highlight problem (not sure if that's the right word) in your image IMHO means it's worse. 2 yours is better although obviously needs cropping. As for 4 I agree with many above natural light is better. One thing it may be better to crop each image as appropriate then put a page, e.g. sandbox where you show each image the right thumbnail pixel size. That way it's easier to compare between versions. Comparing images of different size may not always give the right idea. Nil Einne (talk) 20:36, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your opinions. But I need some clarification on something:

• Zscout370, Kim D. Petersen and Turelio, all three of you stated that you agreed with Kevin and ThaddeusB. But Kevin and Thaddeus did not agree themselves on Daphne's pic. Which pic of Daphnee did you prefer?
• Piano non troppo, Cyclopia and JackLee, you said that you prefer "my" Joanne Kelly pic. But both of them are mine. Which one were you referring to?
• Most of you said that you preferred my Daphnee pic, but only if it was modified to crop it, and/or fix the contrast/saturation. I can crop it in PhotoShop, but I don't know how to fix saturation/contrast. Are any of you able to do that? Could you then upload it to the Commons (with a "2" placed at the end of an identical file name)? Do you know anyone who can? Thanks. Nightscream (talk) 00:54, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

10.17.09JoanneKellyByLuigiNovi2.jpg was the one I would consider printing and putting on my wall. Also, if you are not able to fix contrast now, I'd suggest you get a shareware program (there might even be a free "lite" Photoshop). www.tucows.com can be a good source, otherwise. Photo retouching can be extraordinarily complicated, but moving a single slider and seeing how you like the change is dead easy (and fun). Regards, Piano non troppo (talk) 21:07, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

BTW on 21 October I uploaded a version of the Daphnée pic with the background clutter removed. Unfortunately parts of her forehead, nose and cleavage are irrecoverably overexposed (you can avoid this in future by setting your EX-Z750's exposure compensation to under-expose by 2/3 of a stop). Anyway, I have now uploaded another version (timestamp xx:57) with her chemise a little less saturated and reduced brightness/contrast of flesh tones, and a further version (timestamp yy:49) that uses blurring to restore colour/texture to the over-exposed areas. The differences are quite subtle and may not be enough to rescue the image. Anyway, I hope this helps. The decision about cropping is up to you! Cheers - Pointillist (talk) 22:56, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Looking over the Menu in my camera, I see that there are "Contrast" and "Saturation" functions, so I should be able to fiddle with those the next time I cover an event, but where is exposure compensation or the stop manipulation?

Where did you upload these new version of the Daphne pic? I don't see them at the Big Apple Con page. Nightscream (talk) 15:31, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Hi, the new versions are on commons at 10.17.09DaphneeLynnDuplaixByLuigiNovi.jpg. I checked on the Casio website and the tech spec for the EX-Z750 says it offers exposure compensation up to ±2 EV in ⅓-stop increments, but I'm afraid I don't know where to find that setting on the camera's menu. All I can say is that it is worth looking for, because over-exposure is impossible (or very difficult) to fix whereas slight under-exposure is easy to correct. - Pointillist (talk) 16:51, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

My comments as experienced user. Kasaalan (talk) 21:51, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

1. http://en.wikipedia.org/File:Daphne_Duplaix.JPG top part cropped is not good, though photograph is good.
1. http://commons.wikimedia.org/File:10.17.09DaphneeLynnDuplaixByLuigiNovi.jpg good yet overexposed and needs some cropping to balance photograph
1. You may use both photographs, except top cropping http://en.wikipedia.org/File:Daphne_Duplaix.JPG is better as image quality. Yet if you like I can fix your photograph issues with image editor. Daphnee Lynn Duplaix
2. http://en.wikipedia.org/File:Michael_Hogan_Dragon_Con_2008.jpg red eye, wrong depth of field, eyes looking right, some top cropping might be useful
2. http://commons.wikimedia.org/File:10.18.09MichaelHoganByLuigiNovi.jpg angle weird, he doesn't stand still but lean therefore proportions got wrong, weird smile, head leaned one side, forehead is overexposed by flashlight, you should adjust your flashlight levels try shifting exposure setting
3. Might be useful as a side reference. Cannot be used as standalone image.
4. http://commons.wikimedia.org/File:10.17.09JoanneKellyByLuigiNovi2.jpg http://en.wikipedia.org/File:10.17.09JoanneKellyByLuigiNovi3.jpg nice photographs, really good work. I will check side by side then tell which one is better.
4. Both photographs are same, except you photomontaged one with panting black, over background. But it is not good, I prefer original one. But why you mentioned about flash, both photographs are same it is not an flash-without flash comparison. Kasaalan (talk) 22:01, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure why you brought up that 2008 Michael Hogan image, since it's not mine, and I never mentioned it. As for his posture/pose/smile, those would seem to be determined by his natural physiognomy and/or his personal choice. I've already cropped that photo and placed it in the article.

As I explained regarding Joanne Kelly, one photo was taken with the flash, and the other without. Because of what the others said here, I placed the one without the flash in her article.

Pointillist, thank you very much. Btw, how did you manage to remove the old Daphne pic from the Commons? There are some old versions of photos of mine I'd like to get rid of in favor of retouched versions, but don't know how to do that. Nightscream (talk) 15:21, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

No problem. I've replied in more detail on my talk page. - Pointillist (talk) 18:42, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

I criticized as professional as I can, my opinions are the same. Generally except Joanne Kelly your photographs require underexposure manipulation in photo editor. It isn't about flash or not, in http://en.wikipedia.org/File:10.17.09JoanneKellyByLuigiNovi3.jpg it appears you photo-manipulated and erased the man in the background from http://commons.wikimedia.org/File:10.17.09JoanneKellyByLuigiNovi2.jpg. I didn't check with photoshop so I am not certain. If you have done so you should avoid that photograph. Kasaalan (talk) 02:06, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Hak Ja Han

Could someone help with an ongoing dispute at this article? The question is if it is alright to include inaccurate information on someone if that information is found in a "Pulitzer Prize-award winning reliable source", but still known to be inaccurate.Steve Dufour (talk) 14:30, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

The information is supported by independent reliable secondary sources. Steve Dufour (talk · contribs) is a bit disingenuous here, as he makes an unsupported claim, above. Cirt (talk) 19:40, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

It should also be noted there was already an WP:RFC on this issue. And it should be noted further that, contrary to the consensus of that RFC, Steve Dufour (talk · contribs) edited to remove the entire section of material . Cirt (talk) 19:42, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

I still think it is wrong for a WP article to repeat an inaccurate statement, even it that statement is from a "reliable source." Steve Dufour (talk) 23:05, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

From the policy page WP:V: The threshold for inclusion in Misplaced Pages is verifiability, not truth. (emphasis on original page text). Cirt (talk) 05:18, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

But doesn't WP policy hold BLPs to a higher standard? Steve Dufour (talk) 15:06, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

High standard of sources - yes. High standard does not mean opinions of individual Misplaced Pages editors equals truth. Cirt (talk) 02:44, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Verifiability is important. Truth is also important but BLP violations can't be excused because they are true. Nobody should think that false information is ok as long as there is a source. That could be a BLP violation. Ipromise (talk) 04:44, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Jeffrey Vernon Merkey

Jeffrey Vernon Merkey (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - editing by a user who is involved in the subject matter of the article itself as a member of the Linux Community using Misplaced Pages as a vehicle to disparage and libel the subject of the biography.

MediaMangler (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) This user has a history of on line harassment of the subject of this bio, and review of the editors editing patterns indicates he is a single purpose account here for promotion of Linux Community views and propoganda and personal attacks on various subjects involved in the politics of Linux. His targets include Groklaw, Darl McBride, The SCO Group, and Jeffrey Vernon Merkey. This editor should be topic banned from the biography in question as his comments and statements do not reflect those of an unbiased third party providing balanced content, but those of an advocate using Misplaced Pages to promote the goals of a particular group. In the present case, the editor continues to insert libel, remove cited balanced content from the article, and skew the articles content for the purposes of disparaging the subject of the biography. The editor states on their user page they are involved in business interests which compete directly against the subject of this bio's business activities as well. 166.70.238.46 (talk) 21:45, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

The IP address 166.70.238.46 is from a banned user. Jeffrey Merkey who is editing once again his biography. ] who just returned as ] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.37.221.6 (talk) 02:28, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Geolocate indicates the IP address 24.37.221.6 resolves to Groklaw -- Linux Community advocates who are not disinterested parties. 166.70.238.46 (talk) 02:44, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

$ nslookup 24.37.221.6

Name: modemcable006.221-37-24.mc.videotron.ca

Address: 24.37.221.6

Admins, please note that the IP address 166.70.238.46 belongs to the permanently banned user Jeffrey Vernon Merkey, and should be blocked just like the other addresses he uses in that same sub net. Ban extension under the existing arb com case should also be noted. 198.11.26.164 (talk) 03:37, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

I don't really feel it necessary to respond to the wild accusations made by Mr. Merkey, but I do find his charge that I'm involved in business interests which compete with his to be very odd. I am currently employed by the US Department of Defense and have been so employed for over thirty years. Unless Merkey is claiming to be either a terrorist or an agent of a hostile foreign government, I don't see how the DoD or I can be competing with his business interests. --MediaMangler (talk) 03:25, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

According to this diff , the ip is claiming to be Jeff V. Merkey. -- ArglebargleIV (talk) 01:19, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

I retract this complaint. User:MediaMangler has exhibited a more neutral approach to the subject of this bio in recent days. I attribute the users conduct to being the recipient of years of misinformation by Novell and other sources of negative propaganda distributed by the Mormon dominated Judiciary of Utah and their jaded documents and views. A more accurate view of Novell's actual view of the subject of this bio can be found in the last Annual review the subject of the bio received from Novell located here: Jeff Merkey's website. This user was also was antagonized and subjected to personal attacks as to his motives, which were in all probability undeseved. It is my belief verified information is the solution to misinformation distributed by others for their own agendas. I believe this is the case here. I retract the complaint and appreicate User:MediaManglers more balanced approach to the subject of this bio. 166.70.238.46 (talk) 02:04, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

The article reads very badly. It would be better for it to focus on his accomplishments, not disputes within the software community -- which most of us don't care about. Steve Dufour (talk) 02:11, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps you would care to join us in the discussion of the article on the articles talk page. The best way to facilitate change is to participate in the discussions.. - 4twenty42o (talk) 02:16, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Okay. Steve Dufour (talk) 15:05, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

James H. Trainor

OK, this gentleman is not living, but everything is unsourced. It oringinally had images of the person's government identification -- which I have deleted. Should all of it be deleted? HyperCapitalist (talk) 02:34, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

• OK, some of this is probably referenced in the embedded links -- but not sure how much of it. HyperCapitalist (talk) 02:41, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

The article is probably not a problem. It should cite sources, that's all. The picture of his I.D. badge is probably a copyright violation. Those badges say they are the property of the authority that issues them. I can't imagine they would like it if someone copied one, for whatever purpose. Steve Dufour (talk) 02:08, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Kyung Lah

Kyung Lah (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - I'm concerned over the weight given to what a Wikipedian is reffering to as a "sex scandal" - and the reliability of sources. It could probably be mentioned that she was forced to quit her job because she was unfaithful if there are reliable sources that state this is what happened, but I'm sure it shouldn't be an entire paragraph screaming "sex scandal". 81.170.235.35 (talk) 12:23, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

I had removed the section yesterday, I see it was reverted. I removed it again and left a talk page comment here. Other eyes and comments appreciated. Xymmax _{So let it be done} 14:53, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

This is in response to the article on former KNBC news reporter, Kyung Lah. First, I want to clarify that I didn't actually write this section. From what I know, its been there more months before the controversy arose. I'm only against section blanking it for reasons stated below.

Moving on...the controversy over sourcing first arose when somebody tried to delete the "sex scandal" section because it was supported by two broken links (which were also there long before I found the article). I reverted the edit because I found another link that asserted to its authenticity. The source I added is from LA Observed (http://www.laobserved.com/archive/2005/03/knbc_staffers_f.php)

LA observed is a blog. Although[REDACTED] states, in its verifiability section, that:

Anyone can create a website or pay to have a book published, then claim to be an expert in a certain field. For that reason self-published media, whether books, newsletters, personal websites, open wikis, blogs, Internet forum postings, tweets etc., are largely not acceptable.

It also adds that:

Self-published material may, in some circumstances, be acceptable when produced by an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications. However, caution should be exercised when using such sources: if the information in question is really worth reporting, someone else is likely to have done so.

The blog in question is run by Kevin Roderick, a person who "spent two decades as a staff writer, line editor and senior editor at the Los Angeles Times, specializing in in-depth projects and coverage of politics, urban affairs and the state of California." He also "shared in two Pulitzer Prizes awarded for staff coverage of the Rodney King riots and the Northridge earthquake." You can read more of his extensive credentials at the biography section at LA Observed (http://www.laobserved.com/kevin.php).

His blog has also been cited as being "widely read by journalists, media professionals, bloggers and politicians and is regularly cited in the national media" by KCRW radio, and "has been named a Best of the Web media blog by Forbes." (http://www.kcrw.com/people/roderick_kevin?role=host)(http://www.forbes.com/bow/b2c/review.jhtml?id=7814)

The credentials I've listed above, which strongly attests to Mr. Roderick's expertise in the field, and the blog's acceptance in mainstream media should meet wikipedia's reliability requirements. Mr. Roderick's articles have also been cited in several other[REDACTED] articles (http://www.google.com/#hl=en&q=+site:en.wikipedia.org+LA+observed+and+wikipedia&ei=q4_kSqDKK5iQkQWG5dGxAQ&sa=X&oi=nshc&resnum=1&ct=more-results&ved=0CA0Q2AQ&fp=8ec9ea851cee2c5b). His article on Kyung Lah were also picked up and circulated by at least two other major publishing sources: OhMyNews (http://english.ohmynews.com/reader_opinion2/opinion_view.asp?code=2078864&menu=c10400&no=303487&rel_no=1&opinion_no=1&page=1&isSerial=&sort_name=&ip_sort=61.73.167.187) and the Los Angeles Business Journal (http://www.labusinessjournal.com/article.asp?aID=61097007.32228202.1118806.58473302.875901.669&aID2=86053).

I think some people want to delete the "sex scandal" section on the Kyung Lah article because she's still considered to be an important figure and a source of ethnic pride within the Korean-American community. This, however, shouldn't result in section blanking her more unfortunate experiences. Also, if somebody is concerned with WP:UNDUE, they should side-stream the section, rather than deleting it as a whole. The scandal is a significant event in her life because it effectively put an end to her career as a news reporter and relegated her to the position of a news correspondent. The difference between the two is explained at wikipedia's correspondent article.--123.224.179.215 (talk) 13:09, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

I don't know much about this situation but as you are the person that wants to add this material, could you perhaps cut out the excessive titillating detail and weaker citations and offer perhaps a single line to insert that would not require its own section...something along the lines of ... In sepember 2009 Kyung Lah was dismissed by (whoever) after allegations of improper conduct(1). Off2riorob (talk) 13:31, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

As we are not censored but are an encyclopaedia I have added a small comment with the strongest cite (imo) this is enough about the incident, have a look and see if you agree. Off2riorob (talk) 13:42, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

I've just asked Xymmax to re-write it, since it was him who first brought up the whole issue with WP:UNDUE. People are already accusing me of POV pushing over the article, so I'm not comfortable with doing the job myself (lest they scrutinize each individual word I write and accuse me of some other violation). I'm sure Xymmax will agree to work with me in side-streaming it. --123.224.179.215 (talk) 13:47, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

I couldn't see who originally added it but your uncited addition of .. "who is prominent for her sloppy journalism." here reveals your opinion of her. Off2riorob (talk) 14:00, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

• comment. If anyone considers that the citation that is left is not strong enough to support the new comment that I have added feel free to remove the edit. Off2riorob (talk) 14:09, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

please review my edits on the article. The article should at least somewhat clarify her act of "improper conduct," since such a phrase is so vague that it can be interpreted to mean many different things (there is a huge different between personal misconduct and business misconduct). Also, I'll agree to the massive edits (which have been watered down even further by such words as "reportedly" and "allegations") so long as readers have access to the details at LA Observed. I've gone through a lot of work to show that the source is not unreliable, so adding this citation should no longer violate anything.--123.224.179.215 (talk) 14:16, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

You inserted the blog source again by reverting three times. Since the discussion is open, please stop continuing the disruptive behavior.--Caspian blue 14:43, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Through my comments above, I've shown that this particular blog is not unreliable and that it meets[REDACTED] rules. As I posted above,[REDACTED] says that some blogs are OK by declaring that :

Self-published material may, in some circumstances, be acceptable when produced by an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications. However, caution should be exercised when using such sources: if the information in question is really worth reporting, someone else is likely to have done so.

Why don't you present your case as to why you think the blog doesn't meet these circumstances.--123.224.179.215 (talk) 14:49, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Please make tidy of your statement to increase readability. You can not blame that people ignore your statement. Rarely, some blogs can be accepted, but sources for the BLP articles, especially any negative views should be very reliable, but the blog does not meet the case. Even many sources from New York Times and Washington Post are deleted in Obama due to BLP concerns and fail to get consensus even though they are very reliable. So your logic for the blog is pretty weak and unconvincing.--Caspian blue 14:55, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Readability? What do you want me to say? Off2riorob was kind enough to read my comments and agreed to not section blank it. My writing is not esoteric literature. I showed that Kevin Roderick of LA Observed is an extremely reliable person to source since he has an extensive career in journalism. He was a senior editor for the LA Times, the recipient of two Pulitzer prizes, and is now director of the UCLA Newsroom. His blog has been awarded "Best of the Web" by Forbes magazine. What else do I have to show that this guy is an established expert in the field of journalism? If you want more, I've provided so many links above. Plus, his article on Kyung Lah has also been circulated by the Los Angeles Business Journal and OhMyNews, so it's not like his blog is the only site that covered the affair.--123.224.179.215 (talk) 15:03, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

You obviously missed to read my reply to you. "Even sources from NYT and Washington Post are deleted.... for BLP concerns and failing to get consensus" I did not take out the sentence inserted by Off2riorob, so please do not mispresent my view. Moreover, "Extremely reliable person"....you confuse "notable person" with "reliable sources". According to your logic, any headman of state is very reliable news sources..Wow!--Caspian blue 15:16, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Why don't you just take the time to read my explanation above. I stated that KCRW wrote that LA Observed is "widely read by journalists, media professionals, bloggers and politicians and is regularly cited in the national media." Plus, you don't just get Pulitzer prizes and awards from Forbes magazine if you're notable, I'm sure that reliability is also a criteria. Plus, the LA Business Journal that off2riorob included in the article for me cites the LA Observed as its major source. Why can't we cite the original source that a respectable news source presents?

If you are so bothered by LA Observed, I'll agree to withdraw it. It only hurts the readers, because now they can't have direct access to the details and to the original source. I still request that "improper conduct" be clarified, since such a phrase is a weasel word. It's so vague, its almost meaningless unless the reader actually makes the effort to open the citation. People can interpret "improper conduct" in so many ways. Can we at least change "allegations of improper conduct" to "allegations of an affair with the television station's field producer"? If you agree with this, I'll be done with the whole thing.--123.224.179.215 (talk) 15:30, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Final appeal, we change:

In March 2005, she was reportedly dismissed by KNBC after allegations of improper conduct.

to:

In March 2005, she was reportedly dismissed by KNBC after allegations of having an affair with the television station's field producer.

This statement is consistent with information included in the LA Business Journal source that off2riorob added.--123.224.179.215 (talk) 15:37, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Personally I feel that what is there is enough, and if people are interested enough they can click on the link to find out more, the citation that we have supporting this are imo not strong and whoever it was, or what position they held is imo excessive detail, you are welcome to get more opinions but imo there is little enough support for this addition that is there. Also IP 123, I see you added your suggestion, please do not add any detail to this edit without getting consensus here or on the talk page there.Off2riorob (talk) 18:56, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

• Sorry I haven't been around the last few days. My feelings about the article are unchanged. The paragraph that previously was present in the article was not appropriate, but it seems that we have consensus about that. I have no problem with the incident being mentioned in the manner that currently is in the article, as I feel that does not violate WP:UNDUE. I do think that there is no basis to mention the field producer or other persons not related to the biography. Xymmax _{So let it be done} 13:44, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Seems to me that the edit has been accepted by all parties, or at the least there is a consensus in support of it. I would say this can be closed as resolved. Off2riorob (talk) 10:50, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Wendy Doniger

• Wendy Doniger (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Spdiffy (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), in theory a new user, edit-wars in order to add the contents of an misspelled email to a biographical article. He believes that that email is absolutely appropriate and necessary in order to describe Doniger's 40 year academic career. I would rather that criticism of her be sourced from scholarly reviews.

The classic BLP violation is negative information that is not reliably sourced. Misplaced Pages should not be one of the first places to announce that someone fathered a child with a mistress or that some woman teacher had a kid with a student. Ipromise (talk) 04:24, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/Lifelike

This Article has no reliable References or Critical Content. It feels more like an Advertisement of the Artist himself. 01:42, 26 Oct 2009 Homem-Christ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.153.196.11 (talk)

Malia Obama

Who collapsed this? Its unsigned. I see it was collapsed after yet another uninvolved editor came in to say "hey should she have an article." Good luck fighting that fight (against a separate article) forever.--Milowent (talk) 18:23, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

• Unless she does something independently notable, such acting, professional singing, or any one of the many other things by which a minor child can become notable (one of which is not simply being the daughter of a famous man), she will not have an article. The loudness of the complaints about this fact do not have any effect on who is right and who is wrong. UA 18:36, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

• Is it normal to collapse discussions like this? Why not wait until whatever the regular archiving schedule is (is there one?)--Milowent (talk) 07:26, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

  It's normal to collapse (or simply archive) discussions that are serving no real purpose, yes. This is one of those discussions. UA 16:25, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

I am the one responsible for collapsing the discussion. Unitanode collapsed it and wrote that he was archiving a rehashed and settle debate (paraphrasing it). I objected because the archiving policy for this board is clear but I only re-worded it to "collapsing discussion", taking out the word "archiving" and other words. Prematuring ending the discussion is actually the worse thing to do because it will only cast doubt on the discussion. The better thing to do would be to allow the usual automated archiving of this thread which will happen in about 7 days. It would clear away all doubt to uncollapse it but I won't do it as I've done enough housekeeping for this board. Ipromise (talk) 05:55, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

This is the BLP noticeboard. From a BLP standpoint, there is no violation (let's hope that it says this way for all of Misplaced Pages). Ipromise (talk) 04:42, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Daniela Cicarelli

An admin suggested I post here to get wider input. My biggest but not only concern is the video link, which might be put back by someone. I tried to explain my feelings about it on the Help Desk:

"Daniela Cicarelli I removed a link to a paparazzi sex video and most of the article--it seemed pov and cruel to Cicarelli. Was I right to do this under BLP? Someone has reverted my edit. ThanksRich (talk) 14:06, 24 October 2009 (UTC)"

BLP mostly deals with material that is poorly sourced (i.e. libellous), and that doesn't seem to apply here. The material was well-sourced. As the reverting user implied, you should have at least started a discussion on the talk page before removing the material; perhaps some of it could have been saved. Xenon54 / talk / 15:00, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

"ok, thanksRich (talk) 23:03, 24 October 2009 (UTC)"

"I've thought about it a bit more, and I think that if what you say is correct[REDACTED] policy then it's pretty messed up. Linking the video is rather discourteous whether or not i'ts legal and well-sourced. Yes, she is a famous person, but "he" may not be, although that's hardly one of my main points. She and he didn't consent to the video, and if I remember and understood correctly, in the United States, the philosophy behind the "public person" privacy rulings by the Supreme Court was overriding and obvious public interest, and surely this video has no ovverriding and obvious public interest. It is true that this was filmed outside of the USA, but do we want to support a kind of virtual sexual tourism? Surely an unauthorized sex video taken within the usa wouldn't pass muster on wikipedia, and I think we should have a uniform policy.Rich (talk) 23:44, 24 October 2009 (UTC)" Rich (talk) 09:27, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

That was an absolutely horrible article. I stubbed it down for balance. --Apoc2400 (talk) 13:10, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Ibrahim Zakzaky

This article could really do with a looking at. Dubious sourcing, some interesting claims. J Milburn (talk) 13:17, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Dreadful article. I removed some stuff which was weasel, but it is still terrible.--Scott Mac (Doc) 17:06, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Peter Hedge

Can anyone have a quick look at the above pages to see if is allowed by the WP:BLP guideline? Unlike most new pages it is sources, but it is more or less completely negative. Also, would it pass WP:BLP1E and WP:NOTNEWS? Excirial 15:24, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

I would agree that it does not pass WP:BLP1E and WP:NOTNEWS as the entire article focuses on his sexual misconduct and nothing more. WVBluefield (talk) 15:41, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

I sent it off to AFD. --Cameron Scott (talk) 15:44, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Compare that article with others who have had scandals and you will see that it is not written in the same way. For example, Sanford, the South Carolina governor or Senator Gary Hart. Ipromise (talk) 05:59, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Marina Orlova

Does this content violate our policy on BLP sources? I think it does, not to mention WP:UNDUE. APK because, he says, it's true 17:01, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

I would say it does, it seems excessive to me. I thought it is not ok to in-line link to utube stuff like that? Off2riorob (talk) 20:41, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Its been removed by User_talk:DCEdwards1966 Off2riorob (talk) 20:45, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Discussion at List of living supercentenarians

Hello,

There is a dispute going on regarding whether or not gerontologist Robert Young's Yahoo! Group by itself is sufficient enough to debunk a claim that a living person is not the age that they claim to be. I do not personally feel that it is, and it has been removed in the past by myself and others, but I've been wrong a lot lately on Misplaced Pages, so I thought I'd bring it here and let the community decide. Robert can post here and give you his opinion himself. Personally I don't care enough anymore to say any more than this, but there should be an official consensus on whether or not it should be considered reliable enough for WP:BLP. The discussion is here. Cheers, CP 19:37, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Let's put it this way: right now, I'm the world's leading expert. Wikipolicy on "verifiability" allows exceptions to be made if the person posting the material is an expert in the field. Further, it's not "original research" if the material is published elsewhere prior to Misplaced Pages.

The "original research" policy has been misused/abused for too long now: it's time to stop. Again, it's NOT "original research" as the research was not posted on Misplaced Pages, originally. How difficult is that to understand?Ryoung122 05:27, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

The material must be published in a reliable source to be included in Misplaced Pages. A Yahoo! group does not count. — The Hand That Feeds You: 15:25, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Why not? Let's take a look at WP: RS policies on "self-published" material:

Self-published sources Main articles: Self-published sources (online and paper) and WP:SELFPUB

Self-published sources are largely not acceptable, though may be used in limited circumstances, with caution:

   * When produced by an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications.

By this definition, which has been on WP:RS in more or less the same form for YEARS, I am an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in this field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications. For example:

http://www.liebertonline.com/doi/pdfplus/10.1089/rej.2009.0857

Thus, by definition, use of material from me could be used from "self-published" sources. The WOP group fits that criteria, as I control/moderate all comments and have for 7+ years.Ryoung122 15:28, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Ok. Can you show us evidence that there is substantial independent evidence for the groups reliability? Specifically, please note any citations by other reputable sources, and if you could, note any doubts expressed in reliable sources about the groups accuracy? Hipocrite (talk) 15:32, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Andre Agassi

Marked as resolved by Off2riorob since Agassi is reporting his drug use in his book. May be manually archived after 05 November 2009 10:46 but will be done automatically

Resolved Seems like the cat is out of the bag. Off2riorob (talk) 10:46, 28 October 2009 (UTC) Andre Agassi Is this ok? This has been added, with a lot of cites, I had a look and apparently it is all from a now removed tweet from someone, would it be better to wait for the book to be released, it is released soon. On October 27, 2009, Agassi was reported to have used crystal meth in 1997, which will be in his autobiography to be released on November 9th, and is titled "Open: An Autobiography. Off2riorob (talk) 22:05, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

John Pelan

• 87.114.171.154 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - This British IP is repeatedly adding non-reliably-sourced negative material to this article without discussion (though he did add links to message-board postings on the talk page, which I removed as irrelevant, since they can't be used as sources). I seem to recall that reversions of BLP violations aren't subject to the three-revert rule; but I've already reverted him three times and I'd rather not deal with this any further. I'm going to drop a final warning on his talk page, but could someone take a look at the matter and suggest a course of action? Block? Page protection? Deor (talk) 18:16, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

I really hate to say anything remotely sympathetic towards an IP who posts stuff like this one did, but . . . the IP is at least partially correct in pointing out that several of the publishing companies named are defunct (Silver Salamander, for example), and that the guy's reputation has been at least a bit tarnished by his erratic business practices. I don't know the extent of the problems, or whether they were transient or ongoing -- all I really know for sure is that on several occasions I had trouble getting books he published through very reliable specialty dealers because they were reluctant to pay him cash up front for orders, and he was said to be unwilling to take orders without advance payment. How much, if any, of this can be supported by reliable sources I don't know; how much, if any, of it went beyond the standard travails of non/semiprofessional publishers, I don't know. If the IP is who I think he is, based on similar posts elsewhere, this reflects a longrunning dispute between guys working in the same field, and the IP won't go away, but his unpleasantnesses will typically be driveby, not continuous. I know, mostly vaguely, too many folks involved wih one or the other guy to be comfortable about involving myself in this. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 21:17, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

I don't really care about any of that. WP is not a venue for working out one's disputes with the subjects of our articles. The IP has now reappeared as 92.8.108.93 (talk · contribs) and is continuing to reinstate the same edits. If there are no sources to back them up, they should not remain in the article. (Actually, the whole article is unsourced, and the notability of the subject seems rather marginal; perhaps someone should AfD it. Nevertheless, as long as it's here, unsourced disparaging material should not be in it.) Deor (talk) 23:23, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

AFD should be for non-notable people. Reverts should be for nasty stuff in articles like "so and so is a fag." Mayor of Gotham City (talk) 01:16, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Mr. Pelan seems to be of marginal notability, at best. The article just says he published some stories here and there. There is nothing much about him as a person. (Oddly enough the publishing house he is said to have founded redirects to an article on another company where he is not mentioned, unless I missed his name somewhere in the article.)Steve Dufour (talk) 02:47, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

I may have misunderstood your comments but just to be clear you definitely should revert unsourced or poorly sourced negative or contentious material concerning living people usually on sight. While it's perhaps understandable we may feel less sympathy for the people involved, the fact that the details may be true is rarely an excuse to leave them in the article (I don't believe Hullaballoo was suggesting it was, I just felt it needed to be said). If reliable secondary sources are later produced this doesn't mean reverting the material was a mistake. Note that vandalism like "so and so is a fag" is actually IMHO, far less of a problem thant stuff like this (see User:Doc glasgow/The BLP problem for example). Given the changing IP, semi protection would likely be a good idea in this case, in fact I'll request it myself. Based on Steve's assessement of the sources which looking at the article is probably accurate an AFD may be a good idea. Edit: Decided not to request semi protection for now. After looking more carefully I noticed the IPs belong to completely different ISPs. While it's possible the IP is using open proxies or editing from a different location I noticed 87 has been back after 92, under a different IP but still in the same 87 range and edit the talk page but not the article after the last warning. It's possible then 92 is not the same as 87 but perhaps a friend or there's some sort of external mention of this (e.g. forum) i.e. WP:Meatpuppetry. I've given 92 a last and only warning. If there's any more such edits, I would definitely request semi protection. Nil Einne (talk) 07:39, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

In the meantime I've removed the material again and have semi protected the article. Repeatedly readding comments about defrauding people without sources are utterly unacceptable, and yes, Nil Einne is right that 3RR does not apply in such cases. I think some semi protection is very well merited given the different IPs, but since I will be off line for a while, so don't mind if others decide differently.--Slp1 (talk) 10:32, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Henry Morgentaler

Henry Morgentaler (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - An anon IP editor appears to have done WP:OR research in some "German archives" and is stating in the article that it is "clear" that Morgenthaler lied about having studied medicine in post-war Europe, when applying to the Universite de Montreal. Shall we just remove? // Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:55, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, that's not ok at all. I've removed it again. It original research by the IP's own descriptor. If this continues we should consider semiprotecting. JoshuaZ (talk) 02:01, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Requesting a few extra eyes

• Susan Hutchison (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Dow Constantine (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

A high profile, very contentious political campaign in Seattle Washington (no small county this; this is the highest elected office in a county of over 2 million people) is heating up as November 3rd elections approach. The campaigns have gotten ugly, and not surprisingly this is spilling over into the articles. Currently, I believe they are neutral, but efforts by supporters & detractors attempting to control candidate's Misplaced Pages pages may have reached the point of extensive socking (see Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet investigations/He pled guilty). Both of these articles could really benefit from more watchers who don't care and can help ensure that they remain neutral. I suspect the situation will cool down after the dust settles following election day. If you have room on your watchlist, please consider keeping an eye out. :) --Moonriddengirl 12:49, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Ezra Friedlander

The article Ezra Friedlander was created with the incorrect title Ezra friedlander yesterday. It was deleted twice by NawlinWiki, but the user (Bogram recreated it with the correctly-capitalized title. I tagged it for PROD due to lack of references and BLP issues, but someone else added several badly-formatted references, two of which were reliable (and one of those two is predominantly about the subject). I tried to clean up the article, or at least format the references properly, but there are a couple of issues:

• The article is a BLP minefield, and I'm still not sure the subject is notable. He's a politician, and as such is a bit more controversial than the article lets on. :) I'd still be in favor of deletion, but it's not CSD:A7 anymore.
• Other than myself, three users and an IP from Brooklyn have contributed non-trivially to the article. None of them has edits to any other article, except for the IP who added a bit of irrelevant data to Marty Markowitz, another Brooklyn politician. I'm doing my best to AGF, but re-creation of deleted articles and separate accounts with exclusive interest in a new article are suspicious.

Should I renominate the article for deletion? Can we get some more eyes on the articles and users in question? I'm a little new to BLPs, and figured it was better to come here for advice than BITE anyone... MirrorLockup (talk) 18:44, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

I did a fairly severe cut-down of unsourced statements. Judging from a Gnews search, the subject of the article is probably not notable, but only marginally so. Feel free to take it to AFD. Ray 20:07, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Good edit...if he is notable, the fact that he's an Orthodox Jew is quite relevant, but you're right that the remaining sources don't say that. There were a couple of other sources that did, but none of them were Reliable. I'll start an AFD in any case. MirrorLockup (talk) 20:14, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Another user showed up and re-added one of the non-reliable sources I deleted before . I already removed that. But this user also made the same mistake as the previous users, adding <ref> tags around something that instead should have been an internal wikilink . The quacking is getting louder...is adding non-reliable sources to a low-visibility BLP that's probably going to get deleted anyway disruptive enough to merit a sockpuppet investigation? MirrorLockup (talk) 12:43, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Bob Enyart

Bob Enyart, a relatively unknown person outside of the Denver area is starting to edit his own biography. He is attempting to remove sourced information related to his child-abuse conviction. Msmothers (talk) 22:35, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

It is not forbidden for an article subject to edit his own article. If you can specify how, specifically, his edits violate WP:COI, then we would be in a better position to decide whether his edits improve the article or not. Bwrs (talk) 02:13, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

The article does seem to be more of an attack piece than a biography of a notable person, I personally really dislike articles like this, more of a rap sheet or a list of all the negative citable things someone who doesn't like him can find on the world wide web, no wonder he wants to edit it. Off2riorob (talk) 18:59, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Agreed, the article looks like an attack page to me too. Alex Harvey (talk) 13:54, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Arguing with Idiots

Jimintheatl (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - This user has been erasing posts that he doesn't like off the talk pages, and disregarding the consensus we have about how the article should be written. // J DIGGITY SPEAKS 02:36, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Can you provide some citations for the claim Jimintheatl has been erasing posts? I didn't look at every single contrib but most of those I have looked at don't show this and don't see anything in the edit summary to indicate he? has done so. I see User:Tedder has been erasing posts when he feels they are off topic (i.e. not about improving the article), usually making it clear in the edit summary. In particular was clear cut offtopic and was also dubious so I don't see any reason to dispute the removals. Given the state of discussion that I'm seeing there, some control may be necessary. P.S. User:A8UDI also did this but I'm not sure whether he intended to remove Tedder's post and in any case Tedder doesn't seem to have felt it worth discussing so it's not really an issue. Nil Einne (talk) 04:40, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

BTW from a glance of the page, I agree that Jimintheatl is causing problems. However there's already several people watching including an admin and also who have told him to stop edit warring so I'm not sure whether the's much that can be done. If Jimintheatl refuses to abide by consensus I guess a block is the only solution. Edit: Actually I see Tedder has already blocked Jimintheatl Nil Einne (talk) 15:25, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

The article itself could be nominated for deletion or merged with Beck's. Steve Dufour (talk) 17:34, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Daniela Cicarelli article

I suggest the page be semiprotected or at least watched over, since I think it's going to take a beating soon.Richard L. Peterson71.198.176.141 (talk) 03:28, 31 October 2009 (UTC) I suggest

WP:RFPP is the correct noticeboard for page protection but do bring up BLP concerns on this noticeboard. Ipromise (talk) 05:26, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

• The article probably should be deleted since she is not that notable. Steve Dufour (talk) 05:35, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
  • I have proposed it for deletion. Bwrs (talk) 09:03, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

more eyes needed

Little Richard has been undergoing considerable editing lately, and it would be very helpful if more good BLP editors could have a look to assist with keeping the tone encyclopedic and ensuring that the sources used are appropriate ... thanks Sssoul (talk) 07:18, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Steve Swindells

Steve Swindells (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) appears to have been largely edited by User:Stephenswindells and User:Danmingo which is the name of his current band therefore there is likely to be a conflict of interest. The article is full of uncited claims and peacock phrases and promotion for forthcoming releases. A note to this effect (diff) was added to the talk page on 26 Oct without any response. I'm not quite sure what actions are needed/appropriate.— Rod 19:13, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

The subject doesn't look very notable to me, I would say nominating it for deletion is a good move. Off2riorob (talk) 19:26, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

The subject does seem to be part of a notable band and is perhaps he himself is notable but hard to find citations for him, article could use a music experts appraisal, possible improvement or merging with the band. Off2riorob (talk) 13:13, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Its been prodded by a reviewer and given a week to sort itself out, It is proposed that this article be deleted because of the following concern: doesn't appear to be all that notable despite the flowery, promotional sounding language throughout. Off2riorob (talk) 14:44, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

I've de-prodded it. He was a member of Hawkwind and has had his own album and single releases e.g. Shot Down in the Night which was covered by Hawkwind. This is a case for WP:SOFIXIT rather than deletion. Manually de-peacocking or reverting to an early 2007 version and then looking at later changes not by the subject are both options.--Peter cohen (talk) 00:46, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Ian Plimer

An editor Ratel (talk · contribs) has written a reasonably large amount of negative material into the biography of the Australian Professor Ian Plimer's biography based on less than reliable sources.

1. A quote from an op-ed that Plimer is a "denialist poster-boy" has been added to the article's lead.
2. Plimer is said to have been a member of the NRSP, and the source given is a web archive (web.archive.org) dating to 2007. The page was subsequently deleted, I imagine after a number of these listed scientists complained.
3. There is quote mining to have the UK Guardian George Monbiot's op-ed name calling Plimer a "climate change denialist" in the following sentence Plimer challenged George Monbiot of The Guardian to a public debate on the issues covered in the book, after Monbiot criticised the book, calling Plimer a climate change denialist. None of this is based on reliable sources. There is only one reliable source covering the Monbiot/Plimer confrontation, as far as I can see, but that source is pro-Plimer. I argue that the incident should either be dropped for insufficient coverage, or it should be based on reliable sources and an effort should be made to present Plimer's and Monbiot's actual arguments, rather than just the name calling.
4. A creationist Duane Gish is quoted in the article saying Gish accused of being theatrical, abusive and slanderous, calling it "the most disgusting performance I have ever witnessed in my life". There is absolutely no need to include the view of a creationist here that Plimer is "disgusting".

There are some other problems and I think we're light years away from a proper encyclopaedic treatment of Plimer's life but I guess this could get things started.

See also Talk:Ian_Plimer#list_of_BLP_and_other_violations. Alex Harvey (talk) 05:40, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

1. The "denialist poster boy" comes from one of Australia's most well known and respected journalists, Phillip Adams, writing for a RS, The Australian. Other well known people to call Plimer a denialist are George Monbiot of The Guardian and an ex-leader of one of Australia's political parties, so it's hardly an unusual claim and is suitable for inclusion, per wp:SPADE.
2. The Internet archive (archive.org) is impeccably correct and has never been impugned at RS/N. Its archives of the NRSP's site are accurate and show that Plimer was listed as an associate, and this is also stated at the well known climate site DeSmogBlog (source not used in article).
3. Monbiot's appellation of Plimer is not "quote mining". Monbiot, who is far more notable than Plimer, used the word "denialist" in several articles about Plimer, even in the headlines such as: "This professor of denial" and "Let battle commence! Climate change denialist ready for the fight" and "Why can't the champion of climate change denial face the music?". This IS from a reliable source, namely, Monbiot's column in The Guardian, and must be included in the bio since Plimer and Monbiot had an actual clash that has been documented on many sites on the web (see the Talk page for links).
4. Duane Gish's views of Plimer are most worthy of inclusion because Plimer wrote a book (Telling Lies for God) that has a whole chapter attacking Gish on a personal basis, calling him a liar and a fraud. Plimer should expect to see the responses of those he attacks quoted in his bio.

Editor Alex Harvey has been accused by others (not me) of forum shopping to get his way in his mission to defend and whitewash those who are part of the global warming denier cadre. He goes to noticeboards at the drop of a hat (I think this is the 4th time in 2 weeks). He refuses to wait for input from others on the Talk page, eschews RfCs in favor of noticeboards, and generally edits disruptively. ► RATEL ◄ 08:00, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

There is no need for the opinion in the lede, especially the denialist poster boy slur, I have removed it. Off2riorob (talk) 11:25, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

1. Thanks Off2riorob.
2. To add some clarification here, the internet archive is an archived copy of a page at a website (=WP:SPS) that was subsequently removed (I guess the reason being that some of those listed complained). It is therefore doubly unreliable. DeSmogBlog is, surprise, surprise, a blog.
3. Nothing to add.
4. Nothing to add.Alex Harvey (talk) 12:06, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

The article also says he attacked various aspects of the Bible in one of his books. I noted on the talk page that this seems like unnecassarily provocative language. Steve Dufour (talk) 17:08, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Dominic Carter

Someone has added a lengthy section to the Dominic Carter page. The new page details domestic abuse allegations against Carter. The changes were made by someone identified only with an IP address. I don't think the content is appropriate for a Living Person. I tried to change this the other day when the entry included only a sentence or two. Now, its grown to an entire section and it looks like someone with a bias. Could someone take a look at it? Thanks Doctorfun (talk) 21:13, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

You're certainly right, and I've taken a machete to that material. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 00:04, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Al Toon

Someone is repeatedly posting material on the Al Toon page saying that the city of Altoona PA was named or has been renamed for the former Wisconsin Badger and NY Jets football player without providing any evidence or references to support this claim. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.80.155.7 (talk) 22:07, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Removed as hoax, and notified user. -- JeffBillman (talk) 00:31, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Eric Mangini

• Eric Mangini (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - Persistent adding of opinion of Rolling Stone journalist and well-known sports talk show host comparing subject of article to fictional children's literature character in unflattering manner. Does not appear to add anything of value to article; i.e. not a critique of subject. -- JeffBillman (talk) 23:22, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Didn't see any problems. Steve Dufour (talk) 16:54, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

And for good reason: The offending edits appear to have been removed from the article history. Works for me... -- JeffBillman (talk) 23:08, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Carrie Prejean

Admin attention is needed here. There's an active edit war going on. Some of the info being added I believe violated BLP. Filthyfix (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has blown way past 3rr. Others would be close depending on if the material is covered by the BLP exception. I reverted to the most blp compliant version and tried to direct the issue to the talk page but reversions re-started before I could even finish posting. Some action is needed but I don't know if it should be protection, blocks or other.--Cube lurker (talk) 17:48, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Note, looks like the named user was blocked as I was typing.--Cube lurker (talk) 17:53, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

There is discussion at Talk:Carrie Prejean#About the implants regarding how much weight to give the material. Any knowledgable input is more than welcome. John Carter (talk) 21:28, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Martin Landau

Martin Landau (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - An IP keeps changing his Date of Birth to 1931 against cited and reliable sources claiming iMDB and his grandma are better. As I pointed out sources indicate otherwise. // Q 08:33, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

I've given the IP a final warning (as they've been warned before on other matters and it was also made clear their edits were inappropriate). In future, it may be best in cases like this to just give warnings and if they don't stop, ask for them to be blocked on WP:ANI or WP:AIV if they ignore such warnings. (Technically warnings may not be necessary if you're clearly told them they need to stop, but it's helpful to have one to avoid any admins who feel they weren't sufficiently warned. You can safely ignore any requests not to edit their talk page (which belongs to the community) although editors are entitled to remove content from their talk page if they desire (it's taken as a sign it was read). Nil Einne (talk) 18:45, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

I see the IP could easily have been given a WP:3RR warning too Nil Einne (talk) 13:09, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Do we have a source that says IMDB is not reliable? Maybe it is proper that some claim (does Martin Landau claim?) that he was born in 1931? From a BLP violation standpoint, there doesn't seem to be a major violation. Ipromise (talk) 04:41, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

IMDB has routinely been found not to be RS by WP standards. See WP:Citing IMDb proposal, and innumerable RS/N queries where it is deemed non-RS. Collect (talk) 14:09, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Julie Bindel

• Julie Bindel (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - IP User:83.100.165.91 repeatedly adding "misandrist" to the list of descriptors in first sentence of article and reverting its removal. This blatantly violates WP:NPOV and by extension WP:BLP. Note that I more generally take the position that this article errs too much toward Sympathetic Point of View and have already tagged the article for NPOV issues. However, I still find the actions by the above IP editor are uncalled for.// Iamcuriousblue (talk) 01:21, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

I have semi protected the article as there is more than one IP address being used, the source being used to verify the claim doesnt support it. Gnangarra 02:39, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Miloš Krasić

If an IP edits an article to state that somebody just now died, is that to be treated as ordinary vandalism (it has already been reverted), or do we do something else? Bwrs (talk) 02:39, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

depends is it sourced, is the source reliable? Gnangarra 02:43, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Not sourced at all. Bwrs (talk) 02:48, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

looking at the actual edit its more likely vandalism, doing a google news search doesnt bring up any articles either. IN general terms a quick check(google) for a news article if it doesnt return any hits treat as vandalism if there are lot of edits request protection(WP:RFPP) until it can be confirmed by a reliable source. On a side note to make it easier for others to check please link to the articleGnangarra 02:51, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Toru Goto (religious persecution)

He is a Japanese Unification Church member who was held against his will by his family for 12 years. The article has few sources and only gives his side, not his family's -- who are also living persons of course. He is also filing a lawsuit against them, it seems. Redddogg (talk) 16:21, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Wow. This article is really a mess. I am a UC member and on Mr. Goto's "side." However the article mentions a "deprogramer" by name and accuses him of serious crimes, without sources. Steve Dufour (talk) 17:03, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Now nominated for deletion. Redddogg (talk) 17:47, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

The parenthetical portion of the title is a terrible choice. Even if this article is kept, it should be renamed. I'm not aware of any other biography which is classified as "(religious persecution)". *** Crotalus *** 16:18, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

I am not sure "deprogramming subject" is any better, and it should probably not have been renamed while the Afd discussion was in progress. – ukexpat (talk) 18:02, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

• Comment: It is also possible that WP:BLP1E would apply here as well. Cirt (talk) 18:43, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
• In an odd twist of events. Cirt has started an article on Daniel Fefferman, one of the editors involved in this dispute. Redddogg (talk) 01:48, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

That is unusual, however Cirt's article on Dan is not bad. Steve Dufour (talk) 16:32, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

2009 Richmond High School gang rape

Experienced BLP-sensitive eyes desperately need at the article. I had been attempting to assist, but simply don't have time available right now, and probably won't for the next couple of days. High profile story, especially in California, and attracting well-meaning but inexperienced editors who need assistance. Xymmax _{So let it be done} 22:10, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

I see what you mean, messy. Shouldn't the article be in some place like a news place? Off2riorob (talk) 22:15, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

I've AFDd it. It belongs on WikiNews. Black Kite 14:59, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

There may be several issues, but the BLP question has not been violated because no names of the suspects or victim has been released. Let's keep it (names) off Misplaced Pages until there is a complete and lengthy discussion. Ipromise (talk) 04:38, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Karl Rove

The last paragraph of the lede paragraph for a while has read as follows:

Rove's name has come up in a number of political scandals. These include the Valerie Plame affair, the Bush White House e-mail controversy and the related dismissal of U.S. attorneys controversy, among others. To date, no charges have been filed against Rove for any of his alleged illegal activities.

Several editors (myself included) have raised concerns about the bolded part of the paragraph. The paragraph has since been changed, but other editors have raised the possibility of restoring it. Does the bold sentence violate WP:BLP? Soxwon (talk) 05:45, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Mr. Rove is very controversial so supporters may be opposed to the language and opponents in support of it. If the sentence considered is "to date, no charges have been filed against ____ for any of his alleged illegal activities", then this may be considered more objectively. There are politicians of both parties whose names could be inserted, just google some politician scandals. The bottom line is that adding "for any of his alleged illegal activities" does make it a BLP violation. Ipromise (talk) 06:50, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

As the author of the original paragraph, which stood from last summer until a few days ago, the intent was to find a middle ground. Rove is, as I understand it, under active investigation, hence the wording. Please see the current Rove talk page for more information. Archive 7 and 8 shows some of the turmoil from the era, and my current talk page also has recent material regarding this. Best, Jusdafax 07:42, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

I took the phrase out. As a neutral from the UK I thought it was weasely and speculative and opinionated and does not belong in the lede at all. if as Justafax claims that the guy is actually under current specific investigation then details of the specifics could be added to the body of the article but to have such an open, unspecific comment in the lede is awful (imo). What are these alleged illegal activities? Who is investigating him and what are these people investigating him about? When will the investigation (if there is one) end? How jolly mysterious. Off2riorob (talk) 14:18, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

I have answered these concerns in exchanges with this user on my talk page and the Rove talk page, but the user has stated they refuse to google anything or look into the archives. In addition the user appears to me (and after the events of last summer, I admit to sensitivity) to be using terms both above, and elsewhere, that approach or cross over the limits of what I understand to be WP:BAIT. Thanks, Jusdafax 15:54, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

• Actually, this issue is fairly straightforward. Do we have a reliable source saying "no charges have ever been filed against Rove", or something roughly equivalent to that? If so, then it is probably a good idea to include it. If not, then it should be omitted, because such a contention would then constitute original research. We need to go with what the sources say. *** Crotalus *** 16:17, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
• Firstly I find User Justafax's comments about me regarding WP:BAIT without any foundation at all and shows from him a complete lack of good faith.

I found this at

"On June 12, 2006, Special Counsel Patrick Fitzgerald formally advised us that he does not anticipate seeking charges against Karl Rove."

"In deference to the pending case, we will not make any further public statements about the subject matter of the investigation. We believe that the Special Counsel’s decision should put an end to the baseless speculation about Mr. Rove’s conduct." Off2riorob (talk) 17:17, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Stale - That article is well over three years old, and is not relevant to the current matter. Again, I have given Off2riorob specific information regarding this, which the user chooses to ignore. I will now paste some of the material from the Rove talk page to this one to demonstrate this. Begin paste

Again, on Aug. 13, the New York Tmes says this: "Congress must continue its investigation into the firing of top prosecutors and call Karl Rove and others to testify so the American people can hear how the justice system was hijacked." Try googling 'Nora Dannehy' and any combination of 'Rove' or 'attorneys firing' for more information on an ongoing investigation. It's my view that 'To date' stands, by Misplaced Pages standards. Jusdafax 00:19, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

It is still not required to be in the lede. I am not going to google anything, all I care about is the weasel pov opinionated edit in the lede. Off2riorob (talk) 00:33, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Would I be correct in saying that you support this edit and don't want to change a word of it? Off2riorob (talk) 00:36, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

As I said, I wrote the paragraph you object to. Frankly, I see it as a compromise between those who would word it much more strongly, and those who don't want mention of Mr. Rove's ongoing legal issues at all (however, remember, he had to testify before the U.S. Congress earlier this year.) I'm open to discussion within reason, but I think by any reasonable standard, you fail to make a case.

To recap: Rove is being investigated at the current time by a U.S. Prosecutor, Nora Dannehy. Now I know you say you won't google anything, so how about clicking on her link? It shows who she is, and what she's investigating. Now click on this link: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/13/opinion/13thu2.html which mentions Rove as a player in the investigations, based on his testimony before Congress.

The day Rove is either cleared, or charged with a crime, is the day we can remove this moderate paragraph. At least, that's how I see it.

End paste

This pasted material demonstrates that we are going in circles here. The person who brought this issue back to this page, User:Soxwon, was warned in September warned for edit-warring on Rove's page. It seems, to me, given the edit histories of both Soxwon and Off2RioRob, that we have long since reached a point of diminishing returns on this issue. I ask for a speedy decision here so that the issue can move forward. Best, Jusdafax 18:11, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Your attempting to point the issue at other editors and not at the edit is very bad faith. You have not answered any of the issues regarding this actual edit, I will add it here so that people can see the actual edit under discussion. Off2riorob (talk) 18:19, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Rove's name has come up in a number of political scandals. These include the Valerie Plame affair, the Bush White House e-mail controversy and the related dismissal of U.S. attorneys controversy, among others. To date, no charges have been filed against Rove for any of his alleged illegal activities.

this is what I edited to...

Rove's name has come up in a number of political scandals, including the Valerie Plame affair, the Bush White House e-mail controversy and the related dismissal of U.S. attorneys controversy .

It is a good edit made in good faith. Off2riorob (talk) 18:23, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

I feel it's important to add (for the casual reader) that Off2riorob fails to discuss any of the points I have just made, and in my view, for the obvious reason that they are facts, which is what Misplaced Pages is supposed to be all about. Jusdafax 18:49, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Jusdafax please discuss content, not contributors. I was advised to bring this here by another neutral editor and await an outside opinion. I advise Off2riorob and you to do the same. Soxwon (talk) 21:33, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Your link provided to support this opinionated edit in the lede of the article, this one is an opinion piece with nothing of any weight to support your edit. I also note that your edit has no support here at all. Off2riorob (talk) 19:01, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Dennis Ketcham

• Dennis Ketcham (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Dennis Ketcham inspired Dennis the Menace (U.S.) at the age of 4. However, he doesn't appear to have any other notability and I'm not sure we should have an article detailing the woes of this otherwise private person (given BLP1E).

I bring this up here because the article talk page obviously gets very little traffic, and I'm not sure (before asking here) whether it should be nominated for deletion. Please advise. AlmostReadytoFly (talk) 12:15, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Boldly redirected to the only thing he's famous for. Hipocrite (talk) 12:35, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Needs more eyes. A user who dislikes my contributions elsewhere is trying to goad me into an edit war over this transparent BLP violation. Hipocrite (talk) 12:25, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

There is no cabal. Neuromancer (talk) 12:30, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Watchlisted.--Scott Mac (Doc) 12:34, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

World Football Daily

World Football Daily (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – I know it's not a bio article per se, but this article has had repeated disputes with a minority insisting that certain information about the hosts and the show not be included, while simultaneously insisting that inflammatory remarks by host Steven Cohen be included. We're long past WP:3RR, but I didn't want to request a block and thereby further incite anyone. –JohnnyPolo24 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Joni Eareckson Tada

I brought my concerns with this article up here a couple months ago but did not receive any input, so I'm giving it another shot. This article has many issues, most notably it appears to be essentially a PR piece for Joni Eerekson Tata. My main concern is with the lack of reliable sources and the tone. Given the subjec matter, I'm worried that if I start single handedly cutting out unsourced or POV commentary from the article it won't be appreciated by her large following. I brought up my concerns with the neutrality of the article on the talk page in September, but no one has commented. Is there anyone here who could read over the article and help cut back the worst of the puffery and POV comments? Any suggestions? --Jezebel'sPonyo 17:26, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Really what should happen is sources found, which shouldn't be too hard, and the article rewritten.Steve Dufour (talk) 23:43, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Thomas A. Tarrants

There are some pretty strong allegations in the Thomas A. Tarrants article and it is completely unsourced. Should it be speedy deleted under G10 or is it salvageable? Jezebel'sPonyo 21:06, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Deleted. The standard procedure is for BLP violations to be removed until sourced. Since it's a new article, that means deleting it. It can be undeleted if sources are provided. Someguy1221 (talk) 21:12, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for the clarification. I generally try to add references to biography articles when patrolling the New Pages backlog, but in this case it seemed predominantly negative and I wasn't sure it should even remain given its current state. I will simply tag any similar articles for speedy moving forward. I'm surprised it lasted a month! --Jezebel'sPonyo 21:21, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Todd English

A number of unsourced derogatory comments about Todd English have been added over the past few hours. Below are urls to diffs illustrating these change, which appear to violate your policies on such matters. Thank you.

http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Todd_English&action=historysubmit&diff=324206668&oldid=324172933 http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Todd_English&action=historysubmit&diff=324206668&oldid=323340582 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tvogeljr (talk • contribs) 05:42, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

I didn't see any problems like that, so probably removed. The whole artice desperately needs to be rewritten however. Steve Dufour (talk) 16:07, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

That's the least of its problems - the article is a complete dog's breakfast, a humongous spam-fest, and needs to be heavily edited into an encyclopedic article. In any event the BLP violations have been reverted. – ukexpat (talk) 16:11, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Fort Hood shooting

Several editors want to state as fact that the accused shooter is guilty, and have removed "alleged" as a descriptor, which I see as required by WP:BLP when there has as been no trial and no confession. A second effort was to say that "according to authorities" an individual is the shooter, which again constitutes an unacceptable presumption of guilt. The preliminary nature of the press coverage is shown by the fact that earlier in the day the main suspect was said to be shot dead, only to come back to life, and that two others were said also to be shooters, only to be exonerated. Some eyes on the article would be welcome. Also seeTalk:Fort Hood shooting#Allegedly". Edison (talk) 06:20, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Hooshang Heshmat

Claims of notability for the academic Hooshang Heshmat are not supported by any reliable secondary sources. This article could be saved from deletion if sources can be found, but if not, what should be the outcome of Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Hooshang Heshmat? --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 11:54, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

The outcome of the Afd discussion is in the hands of the admin who reviews it when its time has run. – ukexpat (talk) 16:23, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages noticeboards
• Misplaced Pages dispute resolution